Petition challenged framing of charge under Section 509 IPC, citing absence of a common toilet in the site plan and discrepancies between the complainant's Section 161 and 164 statements. The court held such variations cannot be tested at the charge-framing stage and found prima facie ingredients made out from the FIR.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~39
STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with SI Arvind Kkumar, PS Bara Hindu Rao.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 23.09.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:28:06
not clearly referred to the incident and allegation made by the complainant. 3. Learned APP for the State has defended the impugned order and while referring to the statement of the complainant submits that it has come on record that the petitioner is exercising control on the portion of the household, which includes the toilet. He further submits that enough allegations are there in the statement of the complainant for sending the accused to trial.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:28:06
toilet and the date of 21.06.2017 is also specifically mentioned therein. 7. Considering the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the present petition stands dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 akc
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:28:06
1 issue framed by the court
Whether charges under Section 509 IPC were rightly framed despite alleged discrepancies in the complainant's statements and site plan.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr.Relied on¶5
(2012) 9 SCC 460 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Kapoor
State
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
